Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Vamp or Not? Blood Legend

DVDThis 2006 film, directed by Rusty Nelson, was pointed out to me by my partner in the DVD rental store. Now it is a shame that I’m going to write all that I am, with regards this film, as she was so excited when I picked it up, my normal response is “Sorry love, I’ve already got it!”

Now, I should have known better. This is a Brain Damage production, staring Syn DeVil, but I am a glutton for punishment and, whilst the description showed this was primarily a witchcraft film with the descendant of a woman burnt as a witch trying, with the aid of her college coven (in a sub "The Craft" rip-off), to bring her ancestor back, there was the following in the blurb:

“Moira becomes a vicious monster feeding on the innocent as she must have their blood to survive.”

Every chance, thought I, that there may be vampiric overtones, after all the witchcraft and vampire genres have crossed paths before, for example in Mario Bava’s Black Sunday.

Okay so you have a set up where teen witch Diana (Heather Jacobsen) murders a couple of college guys in order to get one of their hearts. When she takes it we see a creature, and by that I mean something of a monster suit that would make the worst excesses of 1950 monster suits seem like high sfx, stood behind her. This has been done at the urging of her Uncle Isaac (Randal Malone offering probably one of the worst movie performances ever). Isaac has guarded the orchard in which Moira (Syn DeVil) was burnt alive and kept it preserved for three hundred years. Ah thinks I, immortality or longevity at least, perhaps I can get through this poor acted, badly filmed movie after all.

Diana and her coven perform a ritual and Moira reappears. the portrait and 'actress' do not matchNow, a couple of things to note regarding Moira. Firstly, as this comparison screenshot will indicate, she looks very little like her portrait. The main thing to note, however, concerns her breasts. I was unaware that in the early 1700s silicone implants were a common commodity. I honestly thought they were a modern invention! The other thing to note, with regards that part of her anatomy, is that the witch burners obviously had a habit of leaving blouses fairly intact, except over the nipple area where they ripped the material away before burning the witch. Come on, it is gratuitous and unnecessary gratuitousness at that. Actually, given the quality of acting and script perhaps it was necessary. I mean, when we have a flash back scene of the burning, Moira actually laughs (with a gusto as fake as her breasts) and states “I’ll be back!”

Anyhoo… this needing the blood of victims malarkey… Diana takes Moira to her Professor’s (Garrett Clancy) apartment, where she slinks under the bed sheets towards him. I sat with baited breath, awaiting the neck bite, and… well… She turned into the monster suit. would have been bad in the 1950sNow the screenshot I took doesn’t really do the terribleness of this justice. Even if I had taken one that showed claws it could never adequately capture the rubber claws wobbling unthreateningly under their own weight – that needs video to capture properly. Worse, this monster didn’t bite the Prof. Oh no, the monster stuck said ineffectual rubber claws into his neck and feeding was then mentioned afterwards in conversation, probably because any convincing feeding was impossible in the fixed rubber mask.

Said conversation also revealed that we are dealing with a demon, and that the witch is the demon and the demon is the witch. Okey Dokey, I was loosing the will to live at this point. The film degenerated hand over fist from there, with a twist at the end which I had seen approaching in the first ten minutes of the movie. Most of the attacks are performed in demon form – looks vampiric but it isn'teven the axe murder – although when it is eating the entrails of a hunter it does take human form and we get a blood drenched mouth shot.

The film is one of the worst I have had the misfortune of seeing for a while. However, I have to state that there was no claim that this might be a vampire movie. Unfortunately that was my interpretation of the blurb - although the images on the jacket rear depicting blood drenched mouth and blood splattered cleavage helped my interpretation along. So that no-one else suffers with the same confusion (or hopefulness) let me state that this film is Not Vamp – it is witchcraft, demon and absolutely terrible to boot.

The imdb page is here.

2 comments:

Tom Jacobsen said...

Ah, so the movie isn't very good, is it? That's unfortunate for Heather. Good review, though. I'll buy the movie I guess, just to see her. I hope her career in horror picks up soon... Also, if you could please correct the spelling of Heather's last name (it's Jacobsen) it would be kind.

Taliesin_ttlg said...

Spelling changed, and my apologies.

I am sure, if Heather keeps at it, it will pick up. Most actors have to go through the pain of working low end movies before breaking into things that will allow them to showcase their talents, from what I can see.